I’m really bored, it’s unfair to play this game when there are so many imbalances. you can’t have me in the Portuguese one of the best economies to have the cassadors and the goons more possible to have a choice to have fast and cheap ordinary, you can’t you have mexico, ethiopian, russia, broken and you have me from the other side a malta an italian carpets, in japan the yasube archers they cost so much, india is bad, the english don’t have engi.school. not to mention the ottos who haven’t received any nerf, that is, mercy devs. give a patch right give us a patch AND FINALLY APPEAR enough with the game of hide.ask some player from treaty
Thing is…
this game was never meant to be balance for treaty. Some civs were just meant to peter out in late game and not be as strong while other become powerhouses. Treaty not being balanced is good, and balancing for treaty has caused immense damage to the health of the game overall.
5 Likes
The game is mainly balanced for 1v1 games, after 20+ games are not considered because at that stage usually there is usually already a clear winner
Yes ok i know that but dude i cant see ordinary very cheap units ,strelets same and you go to italy malta and other and see more expensive units
well, while that’s true, treaty has been part of the game for a long time, even if I’m not the biggest fan of it. They should balance it, but separately.
You are bored, and you playing treaty…i mean, of course you are bored…
3 Likes
Which ones?? Because Sipahis, aztec rush, organ guns or Mexico werent planned for treaty and are the current balance concerns. Inca never were a huge problem in treaty and 7 fires council card wasnt for treaty either.
Same happens with revolts, only South Africa was an issue if the game lasted long enough. And no, mortars on samurais wasnt a treaty request
The only problem in treaty are the upper limit of certain civs - too strong eco + too many military pops, Mexico, Texas Usa, Ethiopia, Haude etc. Rest are rather ok. Civs are meant to be unique, so its natural that no civ can excel at everything.
1 Like
I think it is fine that some civs are weaker than others, the problem is if some civs are stronger than the rest.
Most civs are relatively balanced in treaty, and there is nothing inherently stopping the game being balance for treaty (40) and normal supremacy, probably not going to make or break a civ in 1 v 1 if they have a mill card in age 1 or not.